The most historical instance of protesting against taxation without representation is now being taught in Texas schools as a terrorist act.

As recently as January of this year, the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative included a lesson plan that depicted the Boston Tea Party, an event that helped ignite the American Revolution, as an act of terrorism. TheBlaze reports that in a lesson promoted on the TESCCC site as recently as January, a world history/social studies class plan depicted the Boston Tea Party as being anything but patriotic, causing many people to become upset with the lack of transparency and review for lessons.

“A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port,” wrote the teachers in charge of organizing the curriculum about the Boston Tea Party. “Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities.

We’ve seen many a politician and Hollywood liberal elite view the Colorado shooting massacre as an opportunity to voice their opinions on gun control. Time Magazine even suggested there is “nothing wrong with politicizing” the tragedy.

Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame was no different in arguing against the Second Amendment right to bear arms via Twitter, but took the conversation to a new low.

Alexander went beyond any reasonable counterpoint, going off on a tangent against the Tea Party which included claims that they’re okay with allowing the government to ‘enslave our citizens’.

One caveat – The citizens he is referring to only consist of ‘liberals, homosexuals, and Democrats’.

Alexander’s entire rant can be seen here, but here is the relevant excerpt below:

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

This summer 34,500 people were forced to evacuate their homes in my home state of Colorado. I watched as a dozen wildfires raged through the state with some contained in days or weeks, while others are still not extinguished.

The extremely hot weather, dry climate and dramatically reduced water supply that all led to the wildfires are part of a pattern that has been unfolding for more than a decade. In fact, the past 10 years have been unequivocally the hottest on record in the history of weather record keeping. But even that heat is dwarfed by what we’ve seen this year. According to the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the first six months of 2012 have been the hottest January-through-June period on record for the contiguous United States.

The national temperatures averaged “4.5 degrees above the long-term average,” the NOAA said in a statement last week.

None of this is a coincidence. It is the result of a manmade pandemic that could very well destroy the planet. It’s called climate change and it is very real and it is happening right now.

Make no mistake, this is a black issue.

The National Council of Churches Eco-Justice program has found that African Americans are at a higher risk for the short- and long-term effects of global warming. Cities will be hit harder by climate change because of what’s known as the “heat island” effect. Urban areas are covered in surfaces like asphalt and concrete that retain heat and as a result temperatures in these areas are higher, especially during heat waves.

Heat waves have stronger effects on urban populations and especially the urban poor. African Americans are more than twice as likely as whites to live in the inner city and nearly twice as likely as whites to live in poverty.

I’d like to point out to the author that the claim this is ‘a black issue’ is backed up by statements that ‘urban populations and especially the urban poor’ would be more readily susceptible to the effects of global warming.

Yet, in the paragraph before that he claims that global warming could “very well destroy the planet”.

He doubles up on that assertion later in the article saying:

This is how it starts.

It ends with seas and oceans rising to engulf entire cities, states and eventually countries.

If the planet is destroyed there Chicken Little, that would mean everyone has perished.

Which in turn would mean that global warming is very obviously NOT racially biased. After all, if the planet has been wiped out it would mean the end of blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, cats, dogs, goldfish, unicorns, the three little pigs, etc.

The whole premise that global warming harms blacks disproportionately is out the window.

Problem is … That’s not an actual headline. Nor is it an actual news story. But this is…

Liberal group calls Romney too white for blacks to like

Bet your ass if that headline read the way the original does, it would be national news.

The message is delivered via video produced by a liberal group headed by an ex-Media Matters executive, and includes such gems as – Romney is so white, he makes Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel … or something.

As is typical, the message hides behind the facade of being a ‘satire’ or comedy. And they will get away with it.

In advance of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s speech Wednesday to the NAACP, a liberal group headed by a former New York Times reporter and ex-Media Matters executive have produced a video “satire” that claims blacks don’t like Romney, who they dub so white he makes “Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel.”

The YouTube from “The Message,” an online “media hub,” is described as a satirical video of Romney getting advice on what to say to the civil rights group. Or, as they said in a release, the video “lacerates Romney and his advisors as they prepare for his speech to NAACP in Houston on Wednesday.”

The lead “advisor” in the video is described as the brainchild of the 1988 Willie Horton ads and the 2004 swift boat campaign. He states bluntly that “blacks don’t like us and we’re about to give a speech to a whole lot of them.”

Here’s the video…

Satire or not, this video is meant to plant the thought that Romney is your typical rich, white guy who can’t relate to the average African-American.

Now imagine a Tea Party group trying to produce a rebuttal to this and see how it would be reported. Would they be able to call it satire? Or comedy?

Allen West, once again showing that he fears nothing in his quest to deliver truthful commentary on the state of today’s liberal Democratic party, ripped into the left’s perpetual use of the race card and stated that ‘true racism’ lies with white liberals.

West was responding to an article in the Los Angeles Times that ripped into Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus for not condemning past comments from the Congressman from Florida. The Times piece showed their true colors by referring to West as a “gaffe-ster” and a “clown prince” of outrageousness.

Apparently, the author would have preferred that Priebus refer to West in the same terms.

West’s response, in an interview with Mike Huckabee, was laced with typical verbal beatings for the left (h/t Right Scoop):

I really feel that it is demeaning to me to think that I need some individual to justify me and my existence. Look, I went through 22 years being in the military, I rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel, I have a bachelor and 2 masters degrees.

And for these white liberals to believe they can have this condescending manner toward black conservatives that we need to have approval from our quote unquote, I guess “masters”, for us to be able to speak – see that’s where the true racism really lies governor is with the white liberals who don’t want to see someone such as myself that broke away from their dependency class and is out here and able to possibly contend against them with the policies that they are promoting that’s destroying the black community.

I know I’m their #1 target and it just emboldens me to speak out even stronger. And the heck with them if they think someone else needs to approve of me and what I stand for.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Well Mr. President, you now have no choice but to accept that notion. You’ve just implemented one of the biggest tax burdens in American history. Own it.

Meanwhile, expect the Tea Party to be back in business in the coming months.

Last week we reported on a pastor who had his $2,400 laptop stolen by the very Occupiers who he had provided shelter. Seems the pastor still hasn’t learned his lesson – that he is clearly part of the 1%.

There’s no longer room at the inn at a Manhattan church that’s sheltering Occupy Wall Streeters after a holy vessel disappeared from the altar last week.… Rev. Brashear walked into the church for a morning service to find the 18-inch-diameter bronze basin and lid missing from the baptismal font’s 800-pound base. Holy water — straight from the River Jordan — had been poured from the missing basin insert into the base’s bowl.He told the occupiers that even when the 100-year-old Upper West Side church extended help to addicts during the 1980s drug scourge, no visitors touched its $12,500 sacramental instrument.

That’s because this brand of degenerates and vandals are more than just addicts – their addicts with a sense of entitlement.

The pastor at the church, the Rev. Bob Brashear, still doesn’t get it. He rightly called out the jackals, but dressed it in OWS lingo. “It was like pissing on the 99 percent.” The Post called it a “fire and brimstone message” from Brashear.

Here is my message to Brashear: You should be preaching to the 100 percent.

That would be the percentage that still believes vandalism, theft, and urination are still unacceptable forms of protest. Normal people in other words.

Why did I bring urination into the mix? Ruberry reports on another incident at a separate church:

Down in Brooklyn, the Post is also ecumenically reporting that a rabbi has washed his hands of the Occupy movement after he learned that an OWS protester urinated inside a Brooklyn Presbyterian church. “The Park Slope church housing occupiers was desecrated when an occupier peed inside the building and the pee came into contact with a cross,” the rabbi bemoaned in a letter.

Smoke bombs are a significant step backwards, considering it was just a couple of months ago that one of the Occupy ilk was firing an AK-47 at the White House. But don’t worry, it’s only those Tea Party terrorists you need to be concerned with.

The White House was locked down for more than an hour on Tuesday night as authorities investigated…

Where is the outrage?

There isn’t any because the Democrats support this kind of thuggery. It was Nancy Pelosi who voiced her support by saying, “God bless them for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

Nothing says spontaneity like having an assault rifle and a smoke bomb on your person at a ‘peaceful’ demonstration.

Obviously, a smoke bomb does not represent a big threat, but it could have been something much worse. Had a conservative protest tossed an explosive device of any kind over the fence during Obama’s presidency — even a firecracker or two —the media would have reported it as clear evidence that conservatives have lost their minds and that their latent violence and hatred was about to burst forth in a bloodbath across the land. And if you think I exaggerate, then you must have missed the hyperventilating coverage last January of the Tucson shooting.

“Make no mistake: The tea party Republicans have engaged in economic terrorism against the United States — threatening to blow up the economy if they don’t get what they want. And like the al-Qaida bombers, what they want is delusional…”

“Americans are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but that’s what Obama has been doing.”

“That the Republican leadership couldn’t control a small group of ignoramuses in its ranks has brought disgrace on their party.”

The hypocrisy is mind-numbing, especially if the Daily Show has to point out something as being uncivil towards the Tea Party.

Now that you know the background on Froma, please watch the video. It is epic:

In a piece titled, When white people lack “bourgeois values”, the Salon Editor at Large manages a race and class-baiting exacta, covering an alleged economic disdain shown by Republicans towards African-Americans, and charging the GOP with promoting policies which “shackle women to the home”.

In attacking a Rick Santorum speech on family values, in which he correctly stated, “When the family breaks down, the economy breaks down”, Walsh had this to say:

It’s a fascinating worldview that colors the entire GOP primary campaign, in which actual policies to help workers and families are rejected in favor of those that cut government and shackle women to the home, and it needs to be better understood.

It’s also another reminder that the prejudice and disdain Republicans once reserved for African-Americans has spread like a toxic mist to stigmatize a lot of other people, including a lot of white folks.

In citing proof of these allegations of prejudice towards white people, Walsh embarrassingly references the 46 million Americans on food stamps, the vast majority of whom are “white people”.

Embarrassing why? Because it was just last May that Walsh used the ‘food stamp’ argument to prove that Newt Gingrich had used the phrase as “coded racism” against “black people”.

Calling the use of the term ‘food stamp’, racist towards blacks, when a majority of those on food stamps are white, can only make sense in the mind of a bigot projecting their own true brand of racism.

Projection is a staple of the left. It is why they continue to harbor some of the more egregious offenders on the topic, whilst playing the race card at every turn. Rush Limbaugh summed it up best when he said the following:

“Democrats and liberals think that we, conservatives, are racists, sexists, and all those other things. In fact, it is they who are those things. It is liberals who look at a human and first notice a skin color, or gender; then they get into sexual orientation, then segment into all kinds of groups. This is the way they see people. They also use projection quite commonly and regularly, and so it is us, they think, who are racists and sexists.”

Projection. In this facet, Joan Walsh excels. It was a few short months ago that Walsh went off on Glenn Beck for comparing the Obama administration to The Planet of the Apes. A simple analogy to a movie for some, but Walsh, in her infinite wisdom, spotted something that nobody with cognitive reasoning skills could see – the prejudiced message behind Beck’s comparison.

But it runs much, much deeper. Scanning headlines concocted by the Salon editor reveals a consistent pattern of including race in nearly every argument. It is so prevalent, one wonders if race is the only prism in which Walsh views the world.

This January alone, Walsh wrote five articles which contained derogatory comments directed toward the GOP about race. Here is a sampling from each:

“While African-Americans are still more likely than whites to see that conflict (between rich and poor), the percentage of whites who agree tripled… credit the GOP for creating the conditions that allowed income inequality to soar”

“…prejudice and disdain Republicans once reserved for African-Americans has spread like a toxic mist to stigmatize a lot of other people, including a lot of white folks.”

“…having a black president makes it seem safe, and necessary, to unwrap Reagan’s pretty paper and once again make plain the GOP’s political association between welfare and African-Americans.”

“… Santorum’s comment about black people is straight from the GOP playbook that created the “Reagan Democrats”… That playbook helped convince the white working class that the government is taking their money and giving it to undeserving black people.”

“Santorum is doing what Republicans have done since the 60s: Trying to turn white people against government programs, and the government itself, by implying they only help black people.”

And when she’s not race-baiting her readers, Walsh breaks out the class warfare rhetoric. Of the ten total articles in January, eight center on either race or wealth inequality.

Walsh’s trend of racial rhetoric is not simply recent. In July of 2010, she flat-out accused the right in general and the Tea Party specifically, of being racist. She wrote, “I honestly believe that the wanton use of that terrible term to defend Obama is part of why today, when there is genuine racism against the president from the right and within the Tea Party, it’s sometimes hard to get anyone to pay attention.”

In that particular piece, Walsh ironically accused conservatives of distorting facts, and was immediately called out by a liberal colleague for actually distorting facts.

One of those Walsh had accused of distorting facts at that time was Daily Caller editor-in-chief, Tucker Carlson. In an e-mail conversation regarding her claims that Republican economic policies “keep women shackled to the home”, Carlson opined, “The economy can’t be too bad if Joan Walsh still has a job.”

As long as there is a liberal stranglehold on the media, there will always be a job out there for professionally intolerant and narrow-minded race-baiters like Joan Walsh.